News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at or before 0000 GMT on May 25th.

As with most activities/thoughts, I think there is a largely hereditary element at the start, but that life experiences can modify you, sometimes profoundly. To give a rather harmless example, I became interested in redheads only after dating a certain girl. The experiences I had over a several-year period literally changed who I was attracted to and why.

For as long as I can remember I have be sexually attracted to anything that i could have "sex" with, I don't know weather I was born this way or chose it, and I don't know if it's even possible to tell at this point.

OP, the way you phrased this question makes me want to flee and hide under my blanket while the argument ensues.

Yes, "sexuality" is a choice. One may chose to have lots of sex, or none at all. Some people chose a life that is full of sex, some chose to contain sexuality in the sacrament of marriage, and some chose to deny sexuality in favor of celibacy.

If you're talking about sexual orientation, than no, it's not a choice. Heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual people might have been born the way they are. Their environmental might have played a major role. I never made a conscious decision about my sexual orientation, though there are those who do in order to hide their feelings or try and make them go away.

Depends what you mean by "choice". As one who is born with something (ADD), does my being distracted and opting to do something else than the essential task at hand is a choice? As a human being I have the knowledge that I should fight through that and make a conscious effort to do the right thing. So am I choosing to do the right thing inspite of my nature? Or am I choosing to fight my fallen nature to conform to what is normal and right?

Same with sexuality, are you choosing the sexuality itself (being gay or straight) or is the choice lying on whether you are to give in to your passions which are genetically hardwired?

Part of it has to do with genetics, part from diet at infancy (I.e. bottle-fed v. Breast fed), and part from personal choice. How much of these parts is not for me to answer.

Regardless, we have all felt like we wanted to do something like punch someone in the face or gossip, but, as Orthodox Christians, we try not to act on these desires but rather, we do what we can to reject satan, with the help of prayer and meekness.

I never chose to be attracted to women. It just happened. I don't know why anyone would believe that having same sex attraction is a choice. Would someone choose a path that would make them feel not only alienated from their religion, but also from the vast majority of society that is heterosexual? I don't think so.

Neither the Bible nor the ancient Near East had any vocabulary of *orientation* to describe sexuality; sexuality consisted in sexual *acts* (cf. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship article on Sexual Ethics for a discussion).

In ancient Eastern terms sexuality is a choice even if orientation is not if you have to take off your clothes together with another person to do it.

In Western academic terms we have been told behavior of all kinds is wholly determined by genetics (E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology), wholly determined by environment/conditioning (B. F. Skinner's Behaviorism, i.e. NO genetics!), totally free and determined by absolutely nothing (Jean Paul Sarte's Existentialism, from an analysis of the phenomenology of conscious existence -cf. Sartre, Being and Nothingness) [note how these three categorical oppositions are in formal contradiction in their extreme forms] and/or (variously) combinations thereof, or something else entirely depending on what academic departments one tunes out as much as what academic departments one tunes in. There is also the question of biological ambiguity in the case of outliers, e.g. phenotypic females with both ovaries and testes, phenotypic males with ovaries, various complex genotypes other than simple XY vs. xx like Klinefelter syndrome and so on, which is a subject in and of itself (to which I might return). But biological outliers aside, speaking just in terms of the "normal" genotypes/phenotypes, it's typically framed as a nature vs. nurture question as much as a cause vs. correlation question (on the latter cf. David Hume's classical critique of causality as demonstrable via empirical data alone -which is to say it's as much metaphysical as physical question/answer no matter how you slice it "scientifically," which is to say statistically, which let us be frank enough to observe only has two options from the start *methodologically*: i.e. (A) stochastic or (B) determined (there is no C or D -methodologically! Yet even here ALWAYS within a standard margin of error -inescapable in the praxis biological statistics of any kind). Does a given neurobiologist believe, for example, that all mental behavior is causally determined *per se*? Answers and mileage will vary, but obviously if someone says all choice is an illusion he/she will not say behavior or temperament X is a choice. But then do they arrive at their scientific conclusions by a chain of causal determinations, only believing what they "must"? For this reason Sir Karl Popper concluded that determinism of this sort is tenuous as a scientific conclusion ipso facto and would be even if it was actually true.There is always a scientist of the day to say something in the area of behavior and causal determinism that is unsupportable from the perspective of the philosophy of science. It is one thing to say what one believes in this regard; it is quite another to show a particular conclusion is epistemologically inescapable; the latter is quite out of the question from the perspective of probabilism and/or the philosophy of science per se IMO That many practicing scientists due to the need for specialization in their training do not study the latter to a degree of even minimal adequacy is immaterial.

I would say if you're a Christian the wise course is keep your pants/dress/whatever on and your body out of another naked person's bed unless you're married in the traditional manner as the historically/spiritually more recommended course and leave questions of "necessity" of "orientation" to the philosophers and scientists who seem to lack the tools to make epistemologically *certain* (i.e. verificationalist ala classical foundationalism) pronouncements apart from something like a propensity interpolation of probabilistic induction in the first place and simply deal with your own temptations -sexual or otherwise!- under the guidance of your priest, spiritual father or mother etc. and with prayer as best as with God's help you can.

The cultural climate helps to determine what the person is willing to explore. All the late inundation of sexy cool gay sex has made many men wonder a time or two if they might not enjoy a nice gentleman for a night. Once the behavior becomes normalized and a legitimate option in the culture, then the numbers will rise.

If we raise children with an equal-opportunity ethic regarding their sexuality, then every reference to love and marriage to them will be carefully worded as the gender neutered modern verbiage is. A "fireperson" instead of fireman or "personhole" instead of a manhole will creep into romantic imaginings with the children. "Whenever you meet the right guy or girl that is meant for you", "whenever you have your first boyfriend or girlfriend", etc. As the kids are developing sexually they will explore the possibility that they might be attracted to either one. Most of us never experienced anything like that. I think it's naive to ignore the correlation between attraction and the normalization of said attraction.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

By your reasoning then, Alveus, there must have been no homosexual attraction at all when and where homosexuality was socially ostracized.Or, otherwise you are merely saying-mutatis mutantis- something rather banal like this: "There weren't many living openly as Christians before Christianity became a licit religion."

« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 12:58:12 AM by augustin717 »

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

Sexuality is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Sorta-kinda. Sexuality is VERY fluidic--contrary to what people on both sides of the spectrum say. I do not know if people necessarily "choose" who or what they are sexually attracted too--I think that a variety of factors determine that including prenatal development, hormones and early psychology--but as to whether we act upon it or not, that is a choice. Then again, I openly admit that my extreme sexual perversion and carnal desires are precisely rooted in certain decisions I have made. Maybe if I hadn't looked at so much porn or masturbated so much then I wouldn't have become so engulfed in passion. So in a sense, maybe choice is involved.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Expand on careful and harm, if you could, in what you just said?

Careful: Monogamous relationship and use of condoms just in case.Harm: diseases, emotional and psychological scars.

By your reasoning then, Alveus, there must have been no homosexual attraction at all when and where homosexuality was socially ostracized.

No, I don't think that follows. While some certainly have more of a personal proclivity or impulse toward homosexuality, the more society supports and even fosters it the more it will increase. Kind of like Christianity. When it became sexy cool in the public eye and there was no risk of death associated, the numbers skyrocketed.

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

They are comparable because they both violate Christian sexual morality, and are both still contentious social issues. I see the main difference usually being rape and consent involving children vs. adult homosexual relationships.

You train a child to consent the same way you train an adult to: social pressure.

At this point, why the hell is monogamy even a factor? What makes any sexual relationship "ennobled" by its monogamy after you abandon the Christian standard? There's nothing left to appeal to other than preference.

alevus, is that what consent is? a mere societal training of its sociocultural mores?

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

The comparison between homosexuality and paedophilia is not one of what one does with the 'orientation', but simply the question of whether the 'orientation' itself is simply in the person, a fact of their 'being' as that word is tossed about now. Irrespective of whether the attraction to same-sex adults or to children (or specifically to teenagers, ephebophilia or just preteens, hebephilia - I don't have them, looked on Wikipedia to clarify) is acted on, and irrespective of the question of "consent"... only asking here to clarify the perspective of the presumably adult individual suffering the affliction, especially in a case where initially, the attraction would not be desired by a 'normal' or 'respectable' person. Lots of loaded terms here, sorry, but you get the point of it?

I think the question of 'sexual orientation' only of the person having the supposed attraction (since I don't really know whether paedo-, ephebo-, or hebephiles experience sexual attraction in the same ways as a homo- or heterosexual) is one of the better defences against the otherwise inevitable normalization of homosexuality - at least from the standpoint of the Christian church(es). If you can categorically say that a person suffering attraction to minors must never act on it, must absolutely never try to construe 'consent' from a minor for sexual or other romantic acts - then, to my mind, Christianity can certainly and in good conscience maintain the teaching that homosexuality, more specifically any and all same-sex sexual acts, is intrinsically wrong.

Edit to add:Seeing if I can wrap up with a reference back to tweety's quote - harm would be to the person having and then acting on the attraction in both cases, spiritually if not 'wordly' (as from consequences in secular law, like a pedophile sent to prison.)

alevus, is that what consent is? a mere societal training of its sociocultural mores?

I'm not being so reductionistic. It's just the component that I'm focusing on because it's the one that's changing.

Everyone seems to be reducing the components that I'm focusing on to some kind of sole-cause or only option. I never said that.

forgive me, meant no offense just inquiring over what your statement meant regarding the concept of 'consent' anyways, no further question. got to go and do some chores I've been postponing, good day to you

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Harms no one? No. It harms the people who engage in it.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

I'm not sure an attraction to animals should be classified as an orientation for a variety of reasons, but not having studied the topic at any given length I shouldn't say more. Regarding a sexual attraction to children, I certainly believe it can be an orientation. To say otherwise has more to do with politics than anything else. I won't go into the arguments why, I'm sure they're readily available on the internet. That said, I hate the way we currently discuss human sexuality in general. I think Western society, including the academic disciplines, approach the whole issue in the wrong way. I'd write a book about it if I had a better handle on the English language.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

You can also say religion is the opiate of the masses, but it sure doesn't have to be that way

Logged

"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

You can also say religion is the opiate of the masses, but it sure doesn't have to be that way

I can say a lot of this which are not relevant to the discussion, but I prefer to stay on topic. Would you please do the same? Thanks!

If yes, at what age did you consciously choose to be attracted to the opposite gender? I personally can't say i chose to be straight. I was born that way. And it has nothing to do with religion.

No, your orientation is not a choice.

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

The cultural climate helps to determine what the person is willing to explore. All the late inundation of sexy cool gay sex has made many men wonder a time or two if they might not enjoy a nice gentleman for a night. Once the behavior becomes normalized and a legitimate option in the culture, then the numbers will rise.

If we raise children with an equal-opportunity ethic regarding their sexuality, then every reference to love and marriage to them will be carefully worded as the gender neutered modern verbiage is. A "fireperson" instead of fireman or "personhole" instead of a manhole will creep into romantic imaginings with the children. "Whenever you meet the right guy or girl that is meant for you", "whenever you have your first boyfriend or girlfriend", etc. As the kids are developing sexually they will explore the possibility that they might be attracted to either one. Most of us never experienced anything like that. I think it's naive to ignore the correlation between attraction and the normalization of said attraction.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

No sexual attraction to children or animals would not constitute a legitimate orientation, although I have seen some people try to argue it that way. But these are also the people who try to tell us that there's a "gene" that causes us to cheat on our spouse.

I guess you don't hear a thoughtful response, because many see it as not being a very serious question -- even to the point of being offensive. Beastiality and paedophilia is against the law in most states, and it's understandable as to why. Children and animals are not capable of consent, nor do they have the intellect or reason to understand those sorts of things.

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

By your reasoning then, Alveus, there must have been no homosexual attraction at all when and where homosexuality was socially ostracized.

No, I don't think that follows. While some certainly have more of a personal proclivity or impulse toward homosexuality, the more society supports and even fosters it the more it will increase. Kind of like Christianity. When it became sexy cool in the public eye and there was no risk of death associated, the numbers skyrocketed.

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

They are comparable because they both violate Christian sexual morality, and are both still contentious social issues. I see the main difference usually being rape and consent involving children vs. adult homosexual relationships.

You train a child to consent the same way you train an adult to: social pressure.

At this point, why the hell is monogamy even a factor? What makes any sexual relationship "ennobled" by its monogamy after you abandon the Christian standard? There's nothing left to appeal to other than preference.

I agree that with the acceptance of homosexuality being normal, more people will want to "experiment" to see if they also are inclined in that way. However I do NOT think that merely because you experiment for a certain amount of time, that it will make you "gay". I have seen no evidence for me to be inclined to believe that..

"You train a child to consent the same way you train an adult to: social pressure"

False analogy which leads to your next comment -- "What makes any sexual relationship ennobled by its monogamy after you abandon the Christian standard"

People have had morality before the Christian Church ever came about. There have been plenty of people who have never even heard of the Judeo-Christian god, and have led very decent lives. The great majority of cultures and world religions teach a standard of morality, that doesn't necessarily include Christianity...

Also morality can be reasoned into by using logic, without religion. This is why even atheists can be very moral people and still not believe in "Christianity", etc..

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

How can homosexuality be harmful to other people? Explain more, please...

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

You can also say religion is the opiate of the masses, but it sure doesn't have to be that way

I can say a lot of this which are is not relevant to the discussion, but I prefer to stay on topic. Would you please do the same? Thanks!

Whenever I post from my phone and I come back to look at that post later, it always has something wrong. Maybe it's because I am in a hurry.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

How can homosexuality be harmful to other people? Explain more, please...

Anything sinful is always harmful.

Any sexual deviant behavior consistently brings with it all the medical problems associated with that behavior.

Anything not natural also brings problems. Just because someone says it is natural does not mean it is natural. It just means that person believes it should be natural.

I could go into a long, long, long list of harmful things associated with homosexuality, or more specifically, deviant sexual behavior in general. The problem is, few people want to look at that directly and most attempt to side track and associate those problems with a laundry list of other activities, thinking it somehow nullifies the problems which come with homosexuality...so I don’t bother wasting my time anymore. I also don’t engage is circular (i.e., ridiculous) arguments if I can help myself.

Just out of curiosity, would a sexual attraction to children or animals constitute a legitimate "orientation"? I know it's a tired argument, but I have yet to hear a thoughtful response.

Is it natural or choice?

That is something that I take issue with regarding many people's arguments in favor of accepting homosexuality as moral behavior. Most such people, with few exceptions, would not likewise apply the same arguments to other "sexual orientations."

E.g.:

"Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

"Paedophilia is a natural phenomenon occurring in human beings, which they have no control over. After all, if it were a choice, why would they choose to be ostracized by society?"

you can't really compare Homosexuality and paedophilia. Homesexuality if you are careful harms none. Paedophilia harms children. Not comparable.

Why can't they be comparable. The same defense can be made for both. You want to distinguish the difference in a legal sense, otherwise one can say homosexuality is harmful to other people.

How can homosexuality be harmful to other people? Explain more, please...

Anything sinful is always harmful.

Any sexual deviant behavior consistently brings with it all the medical problems associated with that behavior.

Anything not natural also brings problems. Just because someone says it is natural does not mean it is natural. It just means that person believes it should be natural.

I could go into a long, long, long list of harmful things associated with homosexuality, or more specifically, deviant sexual behavior in general. The problem is, few people want to look at that directly and most attempt to side track and associate those problems with a laundry list of other activities, thinking it somehow nullifies the problems which come with homosexuality...so I don’t bother wasting my time anymore. I also don’t engage is circular (i.e., ridiculous) arguments if I can help myself.

Ah by "sexual behavior" you are differentiating between homosexuality, and certain homosexual acts aren't you? The same arguments could be made for heterosexual sex, could they not? It is harmful and dangerous to have sex with just anyone regardless of gender... Your version of "sinfulness" is solely based off of Christianity, BTW. You are entitled to those beliefs, just do not expect everyone to agree with that. Also many have a hard time telling the difference between who they are and what they're attracted to, so they might feel you were calling them "deviants" because of their inclinations.

Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity